Hatch Act on books for valid reason

Published: Sunday, September 23, 2012 at 11:54 AM.

WHEN HEALTH and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius deliberately politicked for her boss, President Barack Obama, and the North Carolina Democratic candidate for governor, Walter Dalton, she did so in violation of the Hatch Act.

The Hatch Act was passed in 1939 to deter political activities by public servants in the executive branch of the federal government. Although the law exempts the president and a few other officials, it specifically prohibits campaigning and other political activity by most federal employees.

Named after New Mexico Democrat Sen. Carl Hatch, the Hatch Act was created as a response to an allegation that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Democratic Party were using the Works Progress Administration as a political machine. An investigation into those allegations corroborated the charges.

Federal employees are well aware that they aren’t allowed to mix work and politics. The president’s exemption exists because, not only is he the titular head of his own party, he has to campaign for re-election while continuing to serve in office.

WHEN HEALTH and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius deliberately politicked for her boss, President Barack Obama, and the North Carolina Democratic candidate for governor, Walter Dalton, she did so in violation of the Hatch Act.

The Hatch Act was passed in 1939 to deter political activities by public servants in the executive branch of the federal government. Although the law exempts the president and a few other officials, it specifically prohibits campaigning and other political activity by most federal employees.

Named after New Mexico Democrat Sen. Carl Hatch, the Hatch Act was created as a response to an allegation that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Democratic Party were using the Works Progress Administration as a political machine. An investigation into those allegations corroborated the charges.

Federal employees are well aware that they aren’t allowed to mix work and politics. The president’s exemption exists because, not only is he the titular head of his own party, he has to campaign for re-election while continuing to serve in office.

Lest anyone think that raising the issue of the Hatch Act in the case of Sebelius is politically motivated, that it is not routinely enforced, they only have to thank back a few years to Lenoir County and an incumbent’s bid for re-election to the county school board. During the course of his first term, the candidate’s job had changed so that he was, at election time, essentially a federal employee. That status forced him to withdraw from the race.

To believe that Sebelius, a former Kansas governor and long-time Democratic politician, was unaware that she was subject to the provisionsof the Hatch Act is a stretch.

Her remarks came in February while speaking in Charlotte at a meeting of the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for progressive issues involving gays, lesbians, bisexuals and the transgendered.

After a federal special counsel found on Wednesday that she was in violation of the Hatch Act during the speech, she claimed that was not her intent.

She said the event turned into something that it should not have been. Considering her experience as a politician and office-holder, a more likely explanation is that she knew better and chose to ignore the law.

While the secretary certainly has the right to an opinion on which candidate should lead both the country and the Tar Heel State, she had no right — either legally or morally — to break the law and enmesh herself in North Carolina’s internal politics in the process.

Federal employees — even cabinet members such as Sebelius — are expected to keep their own counsel and stay out of political activities.

Although unlikely to happen, the secretary should be punished for her transgression. Her activities set a poor example for other federal employees.